[Marxism] Is Rep. Tulsi Gabbard being doubly described unfairly for holding pro-drone, pro-occupation views?

J.B. Nicholson jbn at forestfield.org
Sat May 11 11:31:26 MDT 2019


In 
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/10/bernie-sanders-and-the-movement-that-might-have-been/ 
Louis Proyect reviewed Jeffrey St. Clair's "Bernie & The Sandernistas" book 
and makes a point to highlight Sen. Sanders' support for drone war citing 
his 2016 "Meet the Press" interview.

It seems to me that although Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) doesn't call herself 
a socialist, much the same criticism of being pro-drone could be raised 
about her. I've written about this in 
https://digitalcitizen.info/2019/02/13/is-tulsi-gabbard-really-anti-war-no-shes-pro-drone-and-for-surgical-strikes/ 
where it seems to me that Gabbard is called "anti-war" or 
"anti-establishment" from supporters and critics alike and neither is 
correct in this description.

In 2018 she told Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept that she's pro-drone and 
used considerable pro-war propaganda anti-war activists used to oppose:

> Jeremy Scahill: I’m wondering what your position, I know that in the
> past you have said that you favor a small footprint approach with strike
> forces and limited use of weaponized drones. Is that still your position
> that you think that’s the — to the extent that you believe the U.S.
> military should be used around the world for counterterrorism, is that
> still your position?
> 
> Rep. Tulsi Gabbard: Well, when we’re dealing with the unconventional
> threat of terrorist groups like ISIS, al Qaeda and some of these other
> groups that are affiliated with them, we should not be using basically
> what has been and continues to be the current policy of these mass
> mobilization of troops, these long occupations and trillions of dollars
> going in, really abusing the Authorization to Use Military Force and
> taking action that expands far beyond the legal limitations of those
> current AUMFs.
> 
> So, with these terrorist cells, for example, yes, I do still believe
> that the right approach to take is these quick strike forces, surgical
> strikes, in and out, very quickly, no long-term deployment, no long-term
> occupation to be able to get rid of the threat that exists and then get
> out and the very limited use of drones in those situations where our
> military is not able to get in without creating an unacceptable level of
> risk, and where you can make sure that you’re not causing, you know, a
> large amount of civilian casualties.
Source: 
https://theintercept.com/2018/01/17/intercepted-podcast-white-mirror/ 
around 28m43s into the audio recording.

She's also for some occupations (so long as they're not "long-term" 
whatever that means) and what she said then she's never contradicted or 
claimed was unrepresentative of her views. She did another interview with 
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald on 2019-05-09 
(https://theintercept.com/2019/05/09/watch-interview-with-democratic-congresswoman-and-2020-presidential-candidate-tulsi-gabbard/) 
and contradicted none of what she said to The Intercept in 2018. In other 
words, there's no reason to believe that the establishment-compatible 
language she told The Intercept in 2018 has changed.

Anti-war progressives and anti-war conservatives are interested in talking 
to her and about her campaign but they're not at all keen on bringing up 
this unchallenged 2018 Intercept interview.




More information about the Marxism mailing list